How far back should we go with the tit for tat calculations? I recall a war where US sold Iraq chemical weapons to kill Iranian soldiers[1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_against...
Almost like there's no tit-for-tat. Maybe the real reason for the enmity is the Iranian regime being theocratic revolutionaries and the US not allowing them to 'export their revolution' (that is, take over the ME) as much as they'd like.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair
Yes it was. The CIA knowingly helped Iraq kill Iranians with nerve gas:
> Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that the CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin and cyclosarin attacks followed.[255]
Realpolitik is pretty much the act of never caring about the moral results of policy, and every power in the middle east practices it. I'm not convinced that KSA would be doing anything morally superior to what Iran is doing if they were in Iran's shoes. Stability would be what changes Iranian policies, and there are a lot of parties dedicated to ensuring that stability never breaks out in the middle east.
Yea, and it's not a good idea in the long term.
>I'm not convinced that KSA would be doing anything morally superior to what Iran is doing if they were in Iran's shoes.
What matters is what countries do now and not what some countries might have done if history were entirely different.
>Stability would be what changes Iranian policies
Many years ago, Kissinger said the Iranian regime has to choose whether whether Iran is country or a cause. They chose to make Iran a cause. Stability is incompatible with the cause's ideology.
KSA exports the same toxic religious fundamentalism, the same if not more radical than anything Iran espouses. The difference is they have the fig leaf of support from first world countries as they do it.
Citing Kissinger does not mean endorsing him.
>KSA exports the same toxic religious fundamentalism...
Iranian-supported fundamentalism controls 4 ME captials, KSA controls only 1 capital. Iran is a explicitly anti-American revisionist power with a serious nuclear program while KSA isn't.
Unsurprisingly, I focus on the bigger more toxic power (that wasn't always the case - two decades ago KSA was the bigger issue). Isn't that more like realpolitiks rather than talking about what would some fictional KSA have done?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program
And when the Reagan administration learned that Iraq was targetting their own Kurdish population with chemical weapons, they still didn't give a shit. But two decades later, when Bush the Younger decided to emulate his father, the American government invoked those gas attacks against civilians as a justification to dismantle Iraq. Two decades late for the Kurds that got gassed by Iraq while the American government pretended not to notice. American foreign policy is depraved.
Why's it so necessary for Germany to sell chemical weapons to be used in a warzone anyway? I wouldn't be surprised to see these were the same companies or individuals that acted 40 years earlier.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_attacks_again...
Objectively, why can't Iran have a nuclear program while Israel, India, and Pakistan can?
> Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers
They are a regional superpower and the United States invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian casualties from violence in Iraq following the destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at around 200,000.
> would you support bombing a different country over something that happened 60 years ago
The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in 1988 and refuse to apologize about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
And then assassinated one of their generals earlier this year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleima...
> SA has nothing remotely comparable
They don't need them. They can do whatever they want in the region while the U.S. looks away and sells them the weapons to do it.
"The bomb dropped on a school bus in Yemen by a Saudi-led coalition warplane was sold to Riyadh by the US, according to reports based on analysis of the debris.
The 9 August attack killed 40 boys aged from six to 11 who were being taken on a school trip. Eleven adults also died. Local authorities said that 79 people were wounded, 56 of them children. CNN reported that the weapon used was a 227kg laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin, one of many thousands sold to Saudi Arabia as part of billions of dollars of weapons exports.
Saudi Arabia is the biggest single customer for both the US and UK arms industries. The US also supports the coalition with refuelling and intelligence."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/19/us-supplied-bo...
Because Iran signed the NPT unlike the others and should abide by its commitments? Because Iran is the country which threatens other countries publicly? Because the Pakistani bomb is enough of a problem and nobody really needs another such problem?
>They are a regional superpower and the United States invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian casualties from violence in Iraq following the destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at around 200,000.
How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement? For that matter, how many civilian casualties are the result of Iranian 'stabilization' in Syria?
>The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in 1988 and refuse to apologize about it.
Read your own cite, there was an agreement and compensation.
>And then assassinated one of their generals earlier this year.
Who had been involved in attacking American soldiers.
>They [SA] don't need them. They can do whatever they want in the region while the U.S. looks away and sells them the weapons to do it.
SA couldn't even respond to the attack on their oil facilities. I was talking about the Iranian nuclear problem though.
They signed in 1968. In your words, "something that happened 60 years ago when both countries had very different governments" But, perhaps after watching the US performance in Iraq, maybe Iran wanted a credible deterrent to prevent the same thing from happening to them.
If the issue with the nuclear program was really about proliferation, the US would have active sanctions against Pakistan. AQ Khan wasn't an Iranian!
> "How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement?"
They didn't invade the country, overthrow the government, and disband the army. If Iran invaded Mexico, overthrew the government, and disbanded the army plunging the country into chaos, do you think the US would stand by and do nothing? No way!
Do you feel that the ISI is any more odious of an institution that Iranian military intelligence in that respect? Why does the US treat them so differently?
> "agreement and compensation"
That's blood money, not an apology. The US screwed up big time in shooting down that plane, and the best they could muster was that it was a "...proper defensive action by the U.S.S. Vincennes." (rolls eyes) When Iran shot down the Ukrainian airliner, at least they had the decency to label it a "disastrous mistake."
> "Who had been involved in attacking American soldiers."
Why were the American soldiers there halfway across the planet in a country where they aren't welcome and don't speak the language? Maybe they wanted the Americans out so that the region could achieve some stability?
My point with the Saudi-Yemen thing is that KSA doesn't need nukes as an insurance policy because the US has their back. No nuclear-armed superpower has Iran's back, so they're probably looking for the security of a nuclear deterrent.
The US-Irainian conflict, like the US conflict with Cuba, is something that should have ended decades ago. It's a legacy of old political hostilities that happened when my parents were teenagers. It's 2021, we have better things to worry about. It's all so petty.
>In 1968.
So old agreements don't mean anything? I support laying down old grievances, but going back on old agreements is usually undesirable, especially after having no objections all this time. Half the international treaties are older than that, which ones are 'safe'?
>> "How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement?" >They didn't invade the country.. plunging the country into chaos
Iran sure tried to between 1982 and 1988. And quite a lot of the Iraqi chaos is their doing. They need a weak Iraqi government so their militia can create a state within the state.
>That's blood money, not an apology.
Iran agreed to it. When Iran shot down its own citizens, it lied about the event until footage leaked out making the lie unsustainable.
>Maybe they wanted the Americans out so that the region could achieve some stability?
Right. The guys building substate militias everywhere, undermining half the states in ME really care about stability.
>the US has their [SA] back Which is why the US really helped them after Iran attacked their oil facilities. Not.
>they're probably looking for the security of a nuclear deterrent.
They are the one openly calling for the elimination of one ME state, and the overthrow of a half dozen regimes on the other. If they want security they should look at their own actions. Or perhaps the 'security' the Iranian regime is looking for is being able to attack others without fear of interference from the West.
I'm arguing that when you weigh Iran's activities in the Middle East alongside U.S. activities in the region over the last 30 years or-so, Iran really doesn't look like the boogeyman it's made out to be.
As a result, when viewing each other as perhaps within the same order of magnitude on the morally outrageous activities scale, the two countries could maybe leave behind the tired old mutual hatred routine that has played itself out since 1979.
A big part of that could be the United States extending an olive branch, apologizing for a few things, letting a few things go, and not simply pointing fingers and rattling sabers at them for cheap political points. The U.S. should be able to look around, realize that they have more important stuff to worry about, and embrace Iran as an economic partner like Europe and China have done.
It's ok for the U.S. to take the first step and extend an open hand. Go to the Wikipedia page on the 'Reactions to the September 11 attacks.' The Iranians deserve it on the basis of their behavior in the early days after 9/11, and the help they gave the U.S. in the early days of the Afghan War. They're not bad people, and have expressed a great deal of kindness to the United States in times of vulnerability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_September_11_...
Push soft power aggressively, offer a more prosperous alternative, and you'll pull the damn rug right out from under the hard-liner's justification for their hold on power.
If the U.S. has learned anything from Cuba, it should be that the stupid 60-year embargo didn't do anything but keep the Cuban people poor and bitter, and the Castro brothers in power.
Our current policy is something dragged up from the Carter administration. It's not the seventies anymore.
More GitHub. Less John Bolton.
How did the 'engage economically to change the regime' policy work with China and Russia? For that matter, did Cuba change at all after Obama's attempt? These policies were a complete failure - the regimes got stronger, yet the drivers of conflict remained. Eventually the same old frosty relations returned.
Engagement fails when it is not reciprocal. The economics did not encourage the regimes to get more moderate - rather the reverse. In order for true change in relations to happen, the other side has to commit themselves to some change too. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime is ideologically committed to its current policies, and refusing to discuss any matters except maybe nuclear. They are definitely not willing to apologize or let things go. I see no real prospects for engagement until this changes.
China and Russia didn't engage economically to change the regime. They did it to make money.
> "For that matter, did Cuba change at all after Obama's attempt?"
YES! When Obama engaged Cuba, the entire political calculus of the country changed almost overnight.
"As Obama began softening U.S. policy toward Cuba, the island signaled openness to reform under the new leadership of Fidel’s brother, Raul. Facing an aging population, a heavy foreign debt load, and economic hardship amid the global downturn, Raul Castro began liberalizing Cuba’s state-controlled economy in 2009. Reforms included decentralizing the agricultural sector, relaxing restrictions on small businesses, opening up real estate markets, allowing Cubans to travel abroad more freely, and expanding access to consumer goods. Cuba’s private sector swelled as a result, and the number of self-employed workers nearly tripled between 2009 and 2013.
Obama and Raul Castro surprised the world in late 2014 by announcing that their governments would restore full diplomatic ties and begin to ease more than fifty years of bilateral tensions. The historic moment marked the culmination of eighteen months of secret diplomacy brokered by Pope Francis in which the parties agreed to an exchange of prisoners, including Cuban intelligence officers and an American development contractor, among other concessions."
U.S. policy towards Cuba was turned 180 degrees in 2016 in a unilateral move by the U.S., so that ended any hopes of progress.
"As a candidate, Trump was fiercely critical of the Obama administration’s thaw with Cuba and he pledged to reverse course once in office. Despite maintaining diplomatic relations, Trump has largely delivered on his promise through policies that curtail trade and tourism, and target Havana’s purse strings."
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-cuba-relations
> "Engagement fails when it is not reciprocal"
Iran was very open to cooperation with the United States following 9/11, right up until they were included in the 'Axis of Evil.'
"In the aftermath of the attacks, the Iranian public responded with sympathy and their government with something resembling prudence. Tehran was the scene of spontaneous candlelight vigils by ordinary Iranians and a temporary suspension of the weekly chants of “death to America” by its official clergy. An array of Iranian officials, many with reformist political leanings, offered seemingly heartfelt condolences to the American people, and even the hardest-line elements of Iran’s leadership briefly summoned the moral decency to denounce Al Qaeda and the use of terrorism against Americans."
...
"The initial willingness to cooperate with the U.S. military campaign against the Taliban eventually bloomed into a wide-ranging, historic cooperation between the two old adversaries that included the only sustained, officially sanctioned dialogue since the negotiations of the hostage release in 1981. Logistical cooperation from Tehran facilitated use of Iranian airspace as well as tactical assistance in establishing supply lines. Equally vital was Tehran’s political collaboration, as the Iranians had close and long-standing relations with the Taliban’s primary domestic opponent, the Northern Alliance."
...
"The “Axis of Evil” speech produced a furious response from Iranian leaders across the political spectrum, and incited a similarly fierce debate in Washington. It did not, however, result in the termination of the bilateral dialogue over Afghanistan, as Tehran demonstrated its capacity to prioritize interests over outrage or ideology. But it marked an across-the board American repudiation of Iran’s ruling elites, one that would become more pronounced over the course of the subsequent year, and a deliberate U.S. embrace of the idea of galvanizing popular opposition against the Iranian regime. In the months that followed the speech, the Bush White House strove to align themselves with regime opponents through public statements and other efforts to expedite political change inside the country."
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/11_iran...
(It's from a Brookings whitepaper, but it jives with the gist of The Twilight War by David Crist)
The U.S. keeps turning its back on both countries when progress begins to be made, based on old animosities left over from the Cold War. It's ridiculous. Why does the wealthiest country on the planet need to be in a pissing contest with a small Caribbean island nation over something that happened under the Kennedy administration? Or a theocracy on the other side of the planet over something that happened under Jimmy Carter? My god, what's the point?
The West engaged Russia and China to make the regimes liberalize. It was really common to hear that a Chinese middle class will bring in democracy. The West got nothing, and the regimes only became stronger and more oppressive.
>YES! When Obama engaged Cuba, the entire political calculus of the country changed almost overnight.
Your long quotes are actions before agreement or negotiation, and it was done as a result of economic hardship (as they themselves acknowledge). Alleviating these hardships did not lead to liberalization, but seemed to have removed the impetus to make more changes.
>Iran was very open to cooperation with the United States following 9/11, right up until they were included in the 'Axis of Evil.'
Right, people who scream worse on a weekly basis and are proudly calling themselves enemies of the US were really offended.
They were willing to tactically let the US off their enemy. But friendly relations require a firmer basis then temporary cynical cooperation - they require the regime to change a few of the policies that the US finds abhorrent, and for that there was zero willingness (They even kept their nuclear program running until the Iraq war spooked them to temporarily shut it off)
> Why does the wealthiest country on the planet need to be in a pissing contest with a small Caribbean island nation over something that happened under the Kennedy administration? Or a theocracy on the other side of the planet over something that happened under Jimmy Carter?
The US got over all that long ago. As early as the 80s the US sold weapons to Iran! It's that the US has a problem being friendly to totalitarian murderous regimes which also have an aggressive foreign policy and officially declare themselves anti-US.
The first makes engagement difficult to square with US values, and leads domestic voter blocks to really oppose engagement. The second makes engagement difficult to square with US interests. The third is just an extra insult.
Friendly relations require the regimes to change policy on at least one measly point. China remained oppressive, but its 'peaceable rise' was really peaceable for a short time, so the US kept friendly relations. Now that China isn't 'peaceable', Biden can't afford to go back to the way things were.
Had Cuba moderated their domestic policy, Hispanics wouldn't have been so susceptible to GOP ads this November. Now, Biden can't risk losing them, so you can forget about a new agreement with Cuba.
The first is after a nuclear program and Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers. The coup is unrelated (would you support bombing a different country over something that happened 60 years ago when both countries had very different governments?), and quite funny when one remembers the Islamists also supported the coup.
>It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal
If you define being constructive as taking hostages over and over than yes they were.
>There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to actually build a bomb.
Apart from weapon drawings, direct recordings of one the key architects discussing weapons[1], mass uranium enrichment.... SA has nothing remotely comparable.
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-has-tape-of-slain-iran-...